I think it would be educational to see a communicated case from the ECHR to a respondent country, in part to see the balance of generality and specificity that may be found in at least the first set of ECHR questions.
The following is a recent case against Russia. It has some similarities in the complaints to those which I suspect Amanda has lodged against Italy, such as violations of Convention Article 3 and 6.1 with 6.3c. The alleged mistreatment of the suspect in the Russian case is much more physically abusive, however. I have selected a Russian case in part because these are usually communicated in English, while the Italian cases are usually communicated in French.
See:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3162
post of 7/23/2015 5:54 pm; or the original on HUDOC
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 5659/10
Aleksey Valeryevich REZNIKOV
against Russia
lodged on 30 December 2009
..... {Statement of Facts omitted for brevity}
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.1. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged torture?
In addressing the above question the parties are requested to deal, inter alia, with the following points:
(a) Once in the hands of the authorities:
(i) Was the applicant informed of his rights? If so, when, and what rights was he informed about? What was the applicant’s procedural status?
(ii) Was he given the possibility of informing a family member, friend, etc. about his detention and his location and, if so, when?
(iii) Was he given access to a lawyer and, if so, when?
(iv) Was he given access to a doctor and, if so, when and was his medical examination conducted out of the hearing and out of sight of police officers and other non‑medical staff?
(b) Where was the applicant held between 2 and 4 July 2008? Was the applicant given access to a lawyer during this period of time (please, submit the relevant documents)?
1.2. Did the applicant’s allegations give rise to an effective investigation? In particular:
(a) When did the authorities become aware or ought to be aware of the presence of injuries on the applicant’s body? Did the arresting officers make reports concerning use of force during the applicant’s arrest? When did the authorities start a preliminary inquiry (доследственная проверка)?
(b) Was a forensic medical examination (судебно-медицинская экспертиза) carried out in order to establish, inter alia, harm to the applicant’s health and the possible origin and time of infliction of his injuries? Was it carried out speedily?
(c) Was the effectiveness of the inquiry undermined in the absence of a decision to initiate criminal proceedings (возбуждение уголовного дела) in reply to the applicant’s allegations (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 129-140, 24 July 2014)?
(d) Was the effectiveness of the inquiry adversely affected by narrowing its scope to the crimes under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code rather than under its other provisions directly relating to causing bodily harm, for instance?
(e) Which officers from which public authorities were involved in the inquiry into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment? Were they independent of the persons who were allegedly implicated in the applicant’s ill‑treatment? In particular, was there hierarchical, logistical, organisational or another interdependence between the inquiring authorities, on one hand, and officers E., N. and A. and investigator P., on the other? What operational and other activities did they carry out in the course of the above inquiry?
(f) Did the authorities provide a plausible explanation for the applicant’s injuries?
Having regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the respondent Government are requested to submit a copy of the file(s) relating to the preliminary inquiry in relation to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment; the applicant’s confession statement, the interview record of 3 July 2008 and the record of the crime scene inspection.
2. Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the use made of the applicant’s confession statement (явка с повинной) and his admissions made during the interview and the crime scene inspection on 3 July 2008? Were the applicant’s right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination violated in the present case?
)
